“ChatGPT, is the influenza vaccination useful?” Comparing Perceived Argument Strength and Correctness of Pro-Vaccination-arguments from AI and Medical Experts

Realizing the ascribed potential of generative AI for health information seeking depends on recipients’ perceptions of quality. In an online survey (N = 294), we aimed to investigate how German individuals evaluate AI-generated information compared to expert-generated content on the influenza vaccination. A follow-up experiment (N = 1,029) examined the impact of authorship disclosure on perceived argument quality and underlying mechanisms. The findings indicated that expert arguments were rated higher than AI-generated arguments, particularly when authorship was revealed. Trust in science and the Standing Committee on Vaccination accentuated these differences, while trust in AI and innovativeness did not moderate this effect.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Science Communication
Published
2025-04-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.24020204
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.31
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

“ChatGPT, is the influenza vaccination useful?” Comparing Perceived Argument Strength and Correctness of Pro-Vaccination-arguments from AI and Medical Experts

Marko Bachl, Elena Link, Selina A. Beckmann
2 citations
Journal of Science Communication
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
1.31
article

“ChatGPT, is the influenza vaccination useful?” Comparing Perceived Argument Strength and Correctness of Pro-Vaccination-arguments from AI and Medical Experts

Marko Bachl, Elena Link, Selina A. Beckmann
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Realizing the ascribed potential of generative AI for health information seeking depends on recipients’ perceptions of quality. In an online survey (N = 294), we aimed to investigate how German individuals evaluate AI-generated information compared to expert-generated content on the influenza vaccination. A follow-up experiment (N = 1,029) examined the impact of authorship disclosure on perceived argument quality and underlying mechanisms. The findings indicated that expert arguments were rated higher than AI-generated arguments, particularly when authorship was revealed. Trust in science and the Standing Committee on Vaccination accentuated these differences, while trust in AI and innovativeness did not moderate this effect.

Journal of Science CommunicationVol. 24(2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
1.31
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.